CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:62
Arguments:40
Total Votes:92
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (40)

Debate Creator

Thewayitis(4071) pic



Why does aveskde down vote thewayitis arguments?

He does his all the time and never has anything of intelligence to add.

 

The truth revealed 9/20/10.  Evidence found in the Thewayitis conversations. 

aveskde said:

"Your atheist debate reminded me, I need to downvote you some more. Thanks for the heads up!"

Add New Argument
4 points

Because thewayitis is a Christian, and aveskde is the anti-Christian.

aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

Christians tend to have bad reasoning skills, but I don't automatically downvote them.

Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
2 points

That is not true whatsoever we just have more values to follow we can't go against the will of God, but that's probably something you wouldn't understand.

Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
3 points

I don't downvote people for being Christian, and I'm not a Liberal. In truth I downvote people who give very wrong types of arguments, the type that would get an "F" from a grade-school teacher. I also tend downvote arguments that defend a wrong position, like creationism being true, or Islam being a religion that endorses peace, especially when those arguments are winning on a debate (I think people are drawn to upvote emotional arguments, even when flawed, so I counteract this).

In the case of thewayitis, in addition to the above reasons I downvote him, I enjoy it because it bothers him so much.

Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

And who would determine the wrong type of argument? All hail god of Createdebate.

Again one claims no god and plays god. Aveskde, you need to take a good look at what it is you actually stand for, because you change sides more often than I shower. You claim you only use facts and then pick only the facts that fit into your little word. Time and time again you do this. The only thing consist about you is your inconsistency.

The down-voting doesn't bother me, however it bothers me that you abuse down-voting by change the outcome of a debate. It gives a false outcome to the debate at hand. Is it that important to you to be on a winning side?

What I enjoy is proving where you are wrong, wrong and wrong again. Checkout your picture next to the word wrong in the dictionary, never mind that is probably another definition you refuse to accept.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
aveskde(1935) Disputed
2 points

And who would determine the wrong type of argument? All hail god of Createdebate.

A wrong argument lacks logical coherency, uses incorrect authorities, takes authorities out of context, lacks consistency with its premises, uses emotion instead of evidence, etc. These are the rules of proper argumentation, and many people here follow them.

You claim you only use facts and then pick only the facts that fit into your little word. Time and time again you do this. The only thing consist about you is your inconsistency.

This is more a matter of proper authorities. Facts that come from a crackpot are less acceptable than those which come from an academic journal.

It could also be that I have a better eye for spotting irrelevancies than you.

The down-voting doesn't bother me, however it bothers me that you abuse down-voting by change the outcome of a debate. It gives a false outcome to the debate at hand. Is it that important to you to be on a winning side?

It's important to me that a side which primarily consists of unsupported assertions, emotional appeals, fearmongering, etc. not win a debate because of voter apathy.

What I enjoy is proving where you are wrong, wrong and wrong again. Checkout your picture next to the word wrong in the dictionary, never mind that is probably another definition you refuse to accept.

You never once have. If you follow the rules, you might, but that would take much effort.

Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
3 points

He does his all the time and never has anything of intelligence to add.

Of course he has nothing intelligent to add! He's a dumb ass atheist!

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
2 points

"He's a dumb ass atheist!"

so does that mean you're a christian?

Side: Because he is a dumb ass

He's a dumb ass atheist!

Addendum:

He's a dumb ass atheist/liberal.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass

Because liberals have a insatiable need to down vote something that they don't agree with.

Side: Enjoys it

Down with the liberals !

Side: Enjoys it
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

This cannot be true, because liberals stand for open-minded. This would be contrary to party belief. On the other hand it is not uncommon for conservatives to object to just about everything.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass

How does one determine who down voted them ?

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
1 point

Click on their points and when you see that they down voted an argument click on the debate and as long as all the show replies have been clicked it will show you what argument they downvoted.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass

You ought to know that by now, Joe.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
1 point

Because he reads them?

In order to write an informed response to this debate I just went and did that to see if I could determine a reason he might do such a thing, and I felt a strong urge to downvote left and right. (I resisted)

Side: Because he reads them
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
0 points

And the reason for this is? Don't like the truth? The truth hurts? Why would you down vote?

Side: Because he reads them
0 points

Below is the only reason that aveskde downvotes my arguments. Taking from a debate here, "Irony of Atheist"

lawnman(1047) Disputed 1 point

I have yet to admit this.

I did not assert you did. I presumed you would reference the thread betwixt Zombee and I.

But you have not actually demonstrated the invalidity of the inference: "...based on x-characteristics, god does not exist." I'll be waiting for that "valid and verbose" explanation.

That is not the purpose of the examples. The examples evidence the distinction of truth and validity. Had she provided a syllogistic argument that validates her conclusion, I still would not have put it on trial. Why? She admits her position is "an un-provable belief.

However, if you care to submit a syllogistic argument in support of your position, I will respond with a valid and verbose critique of its validity or invalidity.

(I can't assume to know what your syllogistic argument is by a single pseudo-premise: ...based on x characteristics.)

Thewayitis(507) Disputed 1 point

There is a giant leap of faith to believe in anything that one has not witnessed first hand.

aveskde(497) Disputed 1 point

There is a giant leap of faith to believe in anything that one has not witnessed first hand.

No it isn't. That's what reasoning and evidence are for.

The real leap of faith comes in trusting your first-hand experience so absolutely when it's all a simulation your brain creates for you. THAT is a leap of faith and most of us don't even realise it.

Thewayitis(507) Disputed 1 point

No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc.

Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is.

aveskde(497) Disputed 1 point

No leap of faith you claim, then there must be a time machine. People build machines, the evidence. The reason, I have seen machines; cars, computers, etc.

Like I said: we use evidence, theory and logic to extrapolate the past. The universe is highly symmetric, which allows us to do this.

Therefore time machines must exist. Flawed reasoning. Just as evolution or the big bang theory is.

Time machines don't exist. However those other two items do. That you deny them shows how fragile your beliefs are.

Thewayitis(507) Disputed 2 points

My beliefs are not fragile in the least bit. You on the other hand get offensive. Don't judge others by your lack of faith.

Time machines exist and a man of logic and reason would know this. I did not say a device that one can travel in time. What is a CLOCK? A machine that measures time, therefore a time machine. This was an intention trap and you fell for it. No wonder you believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, you are gullible.

Aveskde, failed to have a response and the down-voting began.

Side: Sore Loser
aveskde(1935) Disputed
0 points

Time machines exist and a man of logic and reason would know this. I did not say a device that one can travel in time. What is a CLOCK? A machine that measures time, therefore a time machine. This was an intention trap and you fell for it. No wonder you believe in the Big Bang Theory and evolution, you are gullible.

Equivocation. Look it up.

Side: Because he reads them AND enjoys it
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

Of course it was equivocation, that was my intent. You claimed that you are superior in your thinking and I intended to show that your thinking is not without error. I did this. After nineteen days this is all you have.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
-1 points

"Bald isn't a hair colour. A vacuum isn't an atmosphere. This should be obvious."

Side: Because he is a dumb ass
zombee(1026) Disputed
1 point

In context, that quote makes sense. A lack of x (hair, religion, color, whatever) does not constitute just another variety of x.

Why post an entirely new thread just so you can call him a dumbass? This is petty and it seems like you are just mad you can't 'win' a debate, or that your arguments get downvoted a lot.

Side: Because he is a dumb ass